Procore MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'GET /rest/v1.0/change_event/statuses', indicating a read-only HTTP operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by 'page' and 'per_page' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another providing the API endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the inclusion of the API endpoint adds technical detail that may not be necessary for an AI agent, slightly reducing efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The API endpoint hint is insufficient for an agent to understand how to handle results or failures effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with parameters 'page', 'per_page', and 'project_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters (e.g., default values, constraints). Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('List') and resource ('Change Event statuses'), providing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Change Event statuses' are and does not differentiate from sibling tools (e.g., 'list_change_event_statuses_v2_0'), which is a clear gap. It's not tautological but remains vague.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions '[Construction Financials/Change Events]' as context, but this is minimal and does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_change_event_statuses_v2_0'. Usage is implied at best.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.